Google
Google is a ____ owned by Alphabet Inc. It's official, Google is evil now Google? Evil? You have no idea Search Tips https://www.lifehack.org/articles/technology/20-tips-use-google-search-efficiently.html https://cleverclicks.com.au/blog/15-awesome-google-search-tricks/ https://ahrefs.com/blog/google-advanced-search-operators/ Privacy https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout - "We also use Google Analytics to help us understand how our customers use the Site--you can read more about how Google uses your Personal Information here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/. You can also opt-out of Google Analytics here: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout." Advertising Opt-Out https://support.google.com/ads/answer/2662922 Opt out of seeing personalised ads http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=2&lang=EN - Global opt-out tool "The companies participating in the WebChoices tool provide transparency and choice under the DAA Principles" :"Use the "OPT OUT OF ALL" feature to control data collection and use covered by the DAA from all currently participating companies in one step." :"Deleting browser cookies may remove your opt-out preferences, so you should visit this page periodically to review your opt-out preferences, or update your choices to include new participating companies." References Journal 1711 Google is a giant because they were willing to go over-board with supply in anticipation of future demand. They developed massive storage redundancy so that they could constantly scan through the web as it developed, so that they could index it for lightning-fast searches. For a search engine to dedicate so much resources to storage would have seemed ridiculous, but as the web grew, that storage became necessary and the demands actually grew at such a rate that no other search companies could keep up. Not to mention Google had the advantage of its optimized algorithms and then the exponential advantages that came with working from the basis of a partially-optimized algorithm and gargantuan datasets of searches to road-test it on. Solidifying their monopoly on internet searches. What is their redundancy factor? I want to know how much data they are able to store (their "storage capacity"), versus the quantity of data that is actually being stored (when removing all repeated entries). I'd call this their memory redundancy factor. I suspect that there is a lot of repeated data in overlapping databases. For example, if someone is searching for toys you might have various datasets that you prime to return to the front page based on past toy searches. Whereas if the same person is searching for cartoons then there's other databases that should be primed. The issue is that there are results that should be served in multiple disparate scenarios, hence its going to be quicker to find them if they appear in multiple datasets relevant to different search parameters. If you wanted to minimize storage, you would just have a single database, and every result just stored in one physical location, but then searches will be slowed down by whichever result is being served from the laggiest part of the network. Hence your average searchtime will always be dragged down due to both distance and network quality. Redundancy avoids this, but means you need many more times more storage capacity than your actual stored data requires. Blockchain thoughts The blockchain is laggy because each node is forced to store all the data of the other nodes. This is kind of like a "complete redundancy" approach. But it's unnecessary if you trust the network as a whole... Having complete redundancy means that you can verify a node's ledger without having access to any other nodes' stored data. If we assume that you have access to many nodes' ledgers, you could significantly reduce the storage requirements of individual nodes, and allow ledgers to be generated from composites of one another. Category:Technology Category:Information Age Category:Corporatism Category:Capitalism